WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney has confirmed that U.S. interrogators subjected captured senior al-Qaida suspects to a controversial interrogation technique called "water-boarding," which creates a sensation of drowning.

Cheney indicated that the Bush administration doesn't regard water-boarding as torture and allows the CIA to use it. "It's a no-brainer for me," Cheney said at one point in an interview.

Cheney's comments, in a White House interview on Tuesday with a conservative radio talk show host, appeared to reflect the Bush administration's view that the president has the constitutional power to do whatever he deems necessary to fight terrorism.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The US considered waterboarding to be torture when the Japanese and Viet Cong used it on captured American soldiers. In some cases enemy officers were even executed over it. Seems like a no-brainer to me too, Dick.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

^ Well of course, what do you expect? The Bush administration thinks that we can do whatever we want because we're the good guys and they're the bad guys and sometimes the good guys have to act like bad guys in order to get the bad guys, never mind the fact that actually makes the good guys bad guys.

I've had it. When the Democrats take over in a few weeks, there should be investigations and impeachments. This country cannot take two more years of these people.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Everyone that condones waterboarding in the administration should be submitted to it. Thier children also. If it is such a minor thing that should not be considered that bad, there should be no protest about this.

The fact that our own government considered it torture when done to us speaks volumes, but we are whittling down our morals and ethics on these issues daily it seems. If torture is OK when you can save lives from it, why didn't we torture the Germans or Japanese in WWII? I'm sure we could have saved lives. I guess there was a stronger definition of right and wrong and a larger sense of humane treatment back then.

Why hasn't the British Government tortured the IRA to get information, or why don't we torture White Supremacists who have clearly stated that they would condone violence against our government? Shouldn't we torture murderers to make sure they didn't have additional victims? For some reason we have always seemed to have this crazy notion that you can't force confessions out of someone by any means other than questioning...there are plenty of circumstances that would warrant "harsh" techniques to protect others (using this administrations reasoning for doing this) but we only select the Muslim terrorists for it.

Or is it that we feel you can do anything to someone labeled a terrorist or someone that is Islamic? We certainly seem to have a whole separate set of rules for them. Why the difference for these horrible people as opposed to the other horrible people we have fought in the past?

Are we blind to the fact that when we "turn up the heat" that our enemies will also??

Whether we do waterboarding to ourselves (navy officers) is irrelevant -- there are plenty of things people do to themselves that I don't want done to me.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's really hard to make a decision whether or not it should be done. I'm sure that there are at least one or two people on this site that will agree. On one hand, I don't think we should, cause, it's inhumane, violates civil rights, and, well.....torturous (sp?)

On the other hand, how else are we supposed to get important info. Maybe if congress decides that the info that this certain person beholds is vital to the survival of our people we should use it. But only then. I mean is this how it should go?:

US Official: So, what do you know about Osama's hideout??

Supposed Terrorist: .....................

US Official: Is he alive?

Supposed Terrorist: .....................

US Official: Do you know anything about anything that is important to us??

Supposed Terrorist: .....................

US Official: Oh well, you're free to go.

(Terrorist leaves)

But still, even with my explanation to myself above, mild torture should be a very very very very last resort.

Bottom line is that alternate forms of finding info should be researched. All this time we're spending torturing these guys could be spend finding other ways to get the information without actually having to lay a hand on them. THAT is something EVERYONE can agree on.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I suppose the issue becomes, is torture reliable. If someone is breaking your fingers one by one, it is reasonable to expect that you would say anything to get them to stop. I won't even mention the question as to whether or not you are a legitimate "terror threat" in the first place. Such dangerous times... *shakes head*

WS

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I suppose the issue becomes, is torture reliable. If someone is breaking your fingers one by one, it is reasonable to expect that you would say anything to get them to stop. I won't even mention the question as to whether or not you are a legitimate "terror threat" in the first place. Such dangerous times... *shakes head*

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's really hard to make a decision whether or not it should be done. I'm sure that there are at least one or two people on this site that will agree. On one hand, I don't think we should, cause, it's inhumane, violates civil rights, and, well.....torturous (sp?)

On the other hand, how else are we supposed to get important info. Maybe if congress decides that the info that this certain person beholds is vital to the survival of our people we should use it. But only then. I mean is this how it should go?:

US Official: So, what do you know about Osama's hideout??

Supposed Terrorist: .....................

US Official: Is he alive?

Supposed Terrorist: .....................

US Official: Do you know anything about anything that is important to us??

Supposed Terrorist: .....................

US Official: Oh well, you're free to go.

(Terrorist leaves)

But still, even with my explanation to myself above, mild torture should be a very very very very last resort.

Bottom line is that alternate forms of finding info should be researched. All this time we're spending torturing these guys could be spend finding other ways to get the information without actually having to lay a hand on them. THAT is something EVERYONE can agree on.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Indeed. It has been well documented that this is the case. Prisoners being tortured will tell their captors whatever they want to hear. Americans who have been tortured, like John McCain, have admitted to giving false information to stop their torment. Not only are these techniques unethical and illegal, they aren't a reliable way of gathering accurate intelligence.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

We run the risk of torturing someone who is not a terrorist of does not deserve it. Bad enough to have to go to someone and say "sorry for the false imprisonment and loss of time out of your life...oh, and sorry about that torture thing too..."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

don't you supposed these thoughts and arguements have come up in wars past? why did we not choose to torture then? modern society, and us in the past, does not condone torture for any reason. why would now be the time to implement it? are these terrorists worse than threats in the past? i doubt a jew in 1940 would think so, or a US soldier in Vietnam, or a gas attack victim in World War I, but we didn't torture then...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Why don't you provide some proof that torture actually occurred? Aside from the incredible fact you seem to be condoning torture by our the corrupt administration running this country, you can't come into this thread and prove a point by asking others to prove something hasn't happened. That is the hallmark of someone who doesn't know anything about the subject.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I was simply offering another point of view. That is why I said, "Well, there's nothing we can do to completely say that we did not use torture back then." That is true I have no proof. There is probably no way I can prove it.

Because we cannot completely disprove that we did use torture back then, I was making it known that there's also no way that we can truely say that we DID NOT use torture.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

^ Yes. I mean we are actually having open conversations about the torture of suspected terrorists. Is this really happening? Now I understand how the people of Germany felt when Hitler was conducting his genocide. I always asked how the majority of Germans could just stand by while that happened--and I now I see the same thing in America of all places. People just standing by, justifying it with all types of reasons. It's sick.

I heard an ad on an AM station yesterday (you know, the station that carries Limbaugh) and it was an ad from the Republican Party instructing the listeners not to vote for the party the terrorists support.